bullywee2010

You are thinking of Jim McInally. Jim McIntyre lives central Scotland and if he was to get the job I'd be very happy with it, was doing a very good job at Cove part-time before they sacked them so Sheerin could get his son in law back as manager.

Nothing confirmed from press and their socials but from his profile on SFA website his current club is listed as Glasgow United so I would assume that means he’s signed?

Was merely correcting one bit of it which is why I said I wasn’t getting into the rest of the argument. I’ve previously held a different viewpoint on it when I was younger (and admittedly when he played for my team) but that view has changed through the years and partly owing to experiences of people I know. It’s obviously an extremely sensitive subject and not one I want to get involved in and would seem hypocritical to have a go at others given previous views on it.

Not getting into the rest of the argument but he did pay the £100k he was ordered to. Court seized it on the sale of his £170k house, it’s just that it was all used to cover lawyer costs on her side as far as I am aware. ETA: the bankruptcy came afterwards in relation to unpaid tax which he couldn’t afford as he had no money left after paying the costs of legal costs including the £100k mentioned that was seized

Yeah I could also be wrong and given an hour long interview cba going back to find the bit it was discussed. But think he said his £100k was seized on sale of house by court but also didn't know if Robertson had paid the £100k. Then HMRC came along over an unpaid tax bill which he then couldn't afford cause the court case and that was when he was made bankrupt.

What I took from the interview was he has paid the money. Sold his house for £170k, of which £100k was seized by the court to settle the £100k awarded. Just seems that most of this was then taken by the lawyers of Denise Clair for her own legal fees.

Surely Cove's aim this year was entirely about staying in the league and it appears that McIntyre had them in a good position to do just that. I had thought from previous interviews, the chairman had acknowledged they had got here earlier than planned and this year was about just surviving in the league. Previously had a soft spot from Cove from living in the area and thinking they were trying to progress in the right way but this sacking makes no sense. Stinks of a well backed club getting ahead of themselves after a bit off success in previous years and getting rid of a manager seemingly meeting the brief they're set. A bit of me now hoping it is Hartley that is reappointed and results go into freefall.

Currently abroad so thought I’d be able to watch this one through the streaming but can’t see any option to buy the stream. Can anyone help out?

Another slap in the face is the council only charging them £8k rent, about 20% of what we were paying when the council supposedly couldn't go any lower.

Goodwillie is likely to resist paying it off in one lump unless a premium is paid to cover the extra tax that will be due compared to if the contract was paid over the 2.5 years. Don’t know how these things work but given it will now be his last pay day in football I’d imagine Goodwillie won’t budge on it at all.

Regardless of viewpoints, disclosing personal information on individuals from a private forum on a public platform is disgraceful.

Was this not when we were still chasing the league and Goodwillie captain? Tbh, I didn't have a clue we had a woman's team although I suspect that is more due to the club being useless at advertising the men's team in the local area over the last few years never mind the woman's team. Were they a foundation team rather than being under the club directly similar to how the u21's are? Not meant to undermine them just genuinely curious.

What do you want us to say? Those that wanted him back have commented to say they are delighted to have Goodie back. What's the point in then getting into arguments with other posters that are always going to view it differently?

Clyde may well have contacted Raith at the end of the transfer window, especially if Goodwillie asked to leave. However, would be extremely surprised if it is because we are in need of cash - as I understand it, we started the season with comfortably the best financial position the club has been in for years and finished last season with more cash in the bank than any other year this century (more than double of any other year during that period). If we have managed to f**k up finances from that position, to the extent where we needed to sell Goodwillie then we should be panicked. But as I said this is why I do not think we have reached out to Raith as we needed the money.

Appreciate everyone has differing views on this but my understanding on criminal justice my whole life was that you are innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers. This has not happened in this case and Goodwillie has always maintained his innocence. The PF determined there was not evidence to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, in the eyes of the law he is innocent. In my view, it is dangerous precedent to start branding people a 'rapist' based on the balance of probabilities given the impact that then has for the rest of their life. I agree something needs to be done due to criminal convictions being so low but doing it through a civil court I do not think is the way. He was ordered to pay damages in a civil ruling, which were seized on sale of his home, and should now be allowed to continue his life. This man is now effectively treated as if he had a criminal record for the alleged offence and is on the register, even though neither are true and the PF believe there is reasonable doubt. This goes against the basic principle behind the criminal justice system. At the end of the day he can get a PVG disclosure if required and if he was not a well known name in football but any regular guy applying for a job, even one that what involve working with children, there would be no issue. He has shown nothing but exemplary behaviour since he joined Clyde and my view is he should be allowed to return if he wishes and Danny Lennon wants him.

My understanding is his share of the damages awarded was seized once he sold his property in Stirling. People claiming he hasn't paid what the judge ordered is, as I understand it, due to the claimant's legal costs being high such that most, if not all, of the damages awarded went to the lawyers. Happy to be corrected on this if my understanding is incorrect.

As you say he has a young family to look after - could that not have been first and foremost in his mind when 'jumping ship' to Raith. The increase in pay is likely to have been substantial (also gave him an extra year of financial security than his Clyde contract did) and given his age, he doesn't have long left for making a career in football. I'm sure the large majority of us would switch jobs to make a better life for our own families. I agree with you on the statement from Raith being unbelievable crass and doing nothing to ease the outrage from their support. However, Raith's statement should not be used to prevent us re-signing him. Given when he originally signed we talked about giving him a second chance, helping rehabilitate him and live a life in society again, which has been fine and accepted by the majority of the fan base for the last 5 years, why can the same not be done now? Finally, I don't think the press reaction will be anywhere near the scale it was for Raith if we bring him back . Firstly, we can stick by the same principles for signing him that have been accepted for the past 5 years. Secondly, we do not have a high profile fan that is mates with many high profile figures, including the first minister, to keep it in the media for a sustained period. I suspect the media would cover it for a day or two then the story would fade away, exactly as happened previously.

I am an accountant and all I would say is if it is the accounts you are going off to try work out how much money the club do/don't have currently then it will give a false position. This is mainly due to fact that the accounts reflect a position at one point in time, in our case back in June, and would not indicate what money we had available in January for signings. Additionally, from the accounts once you include creditors that we owe money to our net asset position significantly reduces from what the cash at bank figure is. From that point, we would have had to start paying players in full again and dealing with reduced revenues etc which may have meant any of the extra income you mention was already being used to plug a hole in our finances. You may well be right that there was money available in January but you can't tell that with any certainty from the position disclosed in the accounts. Hope this helps.